If you're the same as him, which is really a "standard" for basket ball players who lack a good strength and conditioning program, you'll have a horrible squat and be in dire need of basic strength training.

Honestly, learn "how" to get strong - learn the basic free weight exercises. Learn how to load the hips. Learn how to lift on your heels - right now you'll always want to be on your toes. Don't worry about being "sport specific" right now, in fact this can only hurt you, to be frank. Sport specific movements for basketball will give you some really horrible squat form.

Honestly, just get strong following a basic program, be really strict with technique. When you have mastered the basics, then worry about the details. Being "sport specific" is really about carryover. You need something to actually carryover first. You do power, jump, agility, and plyo drills all the time when you practice your sport. Hit the other end of the spectrum and build some strength when you're in the gym.

Plyometrics shouldn`t be done with pre-pubescent children and always monitored carefully.

What is the basis for this assertion?

Well... after reading the last replies of Oscar and you, I have to admit, I don`t feel very motivated to answer questions or explain things here...

So I will keep it as short as I can:

Read the Plyometrics-Entry on wikipedia (for a start - what I learned to be a licensed trainer for Volleyball and the books I read probably won`t matter to you) and keep in mind that I certainly never meant plyometrics as "simple jumping (with little regard for time of execution)". (That meaning of the term doesn`t exist in my first language - as a sidenote... in my first language "sprints" and "intervall-training" aren`t "practically the same" either. The english language seems to lack certain specific terms I`m used to.)

If there still isn`t a "basis" for my "assertion" or if actual scientific research has proven that plyometrics that utilize "the shock method" is perfectly usable with kids without problems... feel free to correct me.

I'm sorry I haven't gotten back in awhile I have been busy studying and kinda forgot about this. I am 15 years old, 6 feet tall, 153 pounds, and honestly no training experience. I play basketball year around it's the only sport I play. I can dunk very poorly but I can. But I do lack strength, embarrassing I know I can only squat about 135. And seriously to those guys who are arguing you guys are very annoying. Also like I said I've been researching this so don't worry about my form I got that down. That's probably why I can jump so high without anything strength

Read the Plyometrics-Entry on wikipedia (for a start - what I learned to be a licensed trainer for Volleyball and the books I read probably won`t matter to you) and keep in mind that I certainly never meant plyometrics as "simple jumping (with little regard for time of execution)". (That meaning of the term doesn`t exist in my first language - as a sidenote... in my first language "sprints" and "intervall-training" aren`t "practically the same" either. The english language seems to lack certain specific terms I`m used to.)

If there still isn`t a "basis" for my "assertion" or if actual scientific research has proven that plyometrics that utilize "the shock method" is perfectly usable with kids without problems... feel free to correct me.

I was just asking you to tell us more about why you said that. You really wouldn't have needed to get defensive about that. I was hoping that you were someone who could give a reasoned explanation for a claim (which is admittedly very common from lots of sites and books) that doesn't make any sense to me. So you could have taught me something and won a convert to your point of view, if you had a logical basis for what you believe. But instead you give us "Read Wikipedia" and "I've read books". Well, that doesn't really tell anyone anything. What did you learn from Wikipedia or from the books that has lead you to this conclusion?

Can you really become a licensed trainer for volleyball from Wikipedia?

_________________Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

...I was just asking you to tell us more about why you said that. You really wouldn't have needed to get defensive about that. I was hoping that you were someone who could give a reasoned explanation for a claim (which is admittedly very common from lots of sites and books) that doesn't make any sense to me. So you could have taught me something and won a convert to your point of view, if you had a logical basis for what you believe. But instead you give us "Read Wikipedia" and "I've read books". Well, that doesn't really tell anyone anything. What did you learn from Wikipedia or from the books that has lead you to this conclusion?

I`m sorry that I got defensive about that... but I didn`t take some of the answers well... may be the wording is a problem...

Have you even read the article? Do you have reasoned explanation that using the "shock method" with kids is safe? And the right thing to train at that age? At the moment I don`t see any reasoned explanation from you either? Enlighten me, if my knowledge is outdated.

When training kids we were thaught which things are trained best at what age to match the natural development of kids to the greatest benefit (and what should be monitored carefully at a given age to avoid problems (injuries for example)). Plyometrics using the shock method weren`t recommended to train with kids. Jump training yes, sure... but not plyometrics with the shock method. Beginning with strength-training yes, but not using this method until there is a solid base.The reasons were outlined in the wikipedia entry.

Quote:

Can you really become a licensed trainer for volleyball from Wikipedia?

No... that took me about 200 hours in theory and praxis not counting the continuing education... I`m not allowed to train professionals with my license though. But does that say anything? Obviously not, as I suspected before...

Have you even read the article? Do you have reasoned explanation that using the "shock method" with kids is safe? And the right thing to train at that age? At the moment I don`t see any reasoned explanation from you either? Enlighten me, if my knowledge is outdated.

When training kids we were thaught which things are trained best at what age to match the natural development of kids to the greatest benefit (and what should be monitored carefully at a given age to avoid problems (injuries for example)). Plyometrics using the shock method weren`t recommended to train with kids. Jump training yes, sure... but not plyometrics with the shock method. Beginning with strength-training yes, but not using this method until there is a solid base.The reasons were outlined in the wikipedia entry.

I have scanned it.I didn't say anything at all about the "shock method" with kids, or if it's the right thing. I have nothing to explain, as I didn't offer any opinion about anything one way or the other! You said that plyometrics (you didn't mention the "shock method" at that point) shouldn't be used with pre-pubescent kids, and I asked for an explanation of this, since I had never heard that there is a problem with that. That's it. You said you shouldn't do it, and I asked why. I didn't say you were wrong.

I had never heard of the "shock method" until you mentioned it.

If the reasons not to use this method with kids are outlined in the wikipedia article, I couldn't find them. This is all I found:

"Further safety considerations include:

Age - should be taken into account for both pre-pubescent and the elderly because of hormonal changes."

So, you may be right, but this article doesn't explain anything. I have criticisms of the article, but that's another matter. In short, Wikipedia is only as reliable as the particular writer and the sources he or she sites, and how he or she sites them. Just because Wikipedia says it doesn't necessarily make it true.

_________________Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

The bottom line in both is that plyometrics have to be done in coordination with a proper strengthening program and then an experienced coach should be making a suitability assessment. That sounds like a good plan regardless of the age. I didn't see any concerns about hormones.

_________________Stu Ward_________________Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~HippocratesStrength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley_________________Thanks TimD

... I had never heard of the "shock method" until you mentioned it. ...

So that is probably the main misunderstanding... I knew only the "shock method" as plyometric and was surprised that the term is (also) used with such a different meaning in the USA (obviously many things and exercises are called plyometrics that really aren`t in the way I know the term)...

The article of Poliquin, stuward linked in his post, pretty much sums everything up I learned about it. The stress on bones and tissue is deemed to high for kids when doing these exercises the right way. The needed ability to control yourself (the form and so on) when doing these exercises is another reason. And as a last reason... there are other things to train with kids with greater benefit at that age. They aren`t considered "basic exercises" in my surroundings... So I recommended to be careful with them, not knowing at that time how old AirAlex29 is and taken into account he will be doing them on his own, without a coach or trainer monitoring him.

But we weren`t given any special results from scientific research, so I asked you, if you knew more than I do on that matter. So after all, I can only tell from my own experience, doing these exercises... they are stressfull

I'm sorry I haven't gotten back in awhile I have been busy studying and kinda forgot about this. I am 15 years old, 6 feet tall, 153 pounds, and honestly no training experience. I play basketball year around it's the only sport I play. I can dunk very poorly but I can. But I do lack strength, embarrassing I know I can only squat about 135. And seriously to those guys who are arguing you guys are very annoying. Also like I said I've been researching this so don't worry about my form I got that down. That's probably why I can jump so high without anything strength

Alex, I'm glad you got the main point from this discussion, to work on your strength.

The discussion may look like arguing but this is how we learn from each other, and that's the main reason most of post here. We do learn from each other.

_________________Stu Ward_________________Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~HippocratesStrength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley_________________Thanks TimD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum